DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: page 2, lines 5-15 of the specification use reference numbers that do not match those in Figure 1 of the drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 2, 8, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: how the gasket includes the rib, and a sufficient description of the rib as part of the gasket. Additionally, the meaning of the language ‘rib’ can be confused with ‘protrusion’ by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph because it is unclear how the at least one rib can be spaced apart along the length of the gasket when there is only one rib present.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
The term “bar shape” in claim 8 is used by the claim to mean “plate shape,” while the accepted meaning is “L-shape, J-shape, or U-shape.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph because it is unclear how the at least on protrusion is on both surfaces of the gasket while simultaneously being connected to only one surface of the gasket.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-15 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurita (US 20120315508 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 20190341590 A1, hereinafter "Kim").
Regarding Claim 1, Kurita teaches a battery pack, comprising:
a plurality of battery modules (multiple battery cells 11, lithium-ion batteries, [0021]);
a case cover (top surface 11c, [0021]) covering the plurality of battery modules, and a case plate (ladder frame 14, [0023]) coupled to an edge of the case cover; and
a gasket (annular seal member 21 [0036]),
wherein the case plate comprises a first side surface plate covering both side surfaces of the plurality of battery modules (see Figure 1, the metal plate “ladder frame” 14 are on both sides of the plurality of battery cells), and a second side surface plate covering the front and rear surfaces of the plurality of battery modules (two end plates 13 are respectively stacked on the outer sides and are fastened to opposite ends of two ladder frames 14, [0023], see Figure 6).
Kurita does not teach that the gasket is arranged in a groove of the case plate located in correspondence to the edge of the case plate, nor does he teach that the gasket includes a rib.
However, Kim teaches a battery pack with a gasket (sealing member 400, [0049]) arranged in a groove (groove portion 150, [0049]) of the case plate located in correspondence to the edge of the case plate (see [0049], and refer to figure 3) for implementing an improved sealing force ([0019]).
Additionally, Kim teaches the gasket includes a rib (polarity indication tab 410, [0050]-[0051]), which indicates the direction of inserting the sealing member into the groove, which may prevent improper assembly by guiding insertion direction ([0051]).
The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the battery pack of Kurita to have the gasket arranged in a groove of the case plate in correspondence to the edge of the case plate to improve sealing force as taught by Kim, and also to have the gasket include a rib to prevent improper assembly as taught by Kim.
Regarding Claim 2, Kurita modified by Kim teaches the battery pack according to claim 1, wherein multiple ribs are provided so as to be spaced apart along the length of the gasket (the polarity indication tabs 410, see figure 3, see [0050]-[0052]). In the combination of Kim’s ribs with Kurita’s battery pack, the ribs would be spaced apart along the length of the gasket, as shown in Figure 3 of Kim. Thus, it would be inherent to the structure of Kurita modified by Kim.
Regarding Claim 3, Kurita modified by Kim teaches the battery pack according to claim 1, wherein the rib is in contact with one surface of the case plate (see figure 3 of Kim, wherein the polarity indication tabs 410 are in contact with one surface of the case plate). Modification of Kurita’s battery pack with the ribs of Kim would lead to the structure presented in this claim.
Regarding Claim 4, Kurita modified by Kim teaches the battery pack according to claim 3. Kurita does not teach a rib having a lower surface in contact with the outer peripheral surface of the case plate. However, the rib of Kim is a part of the gasket ([0050]), and thus is expected to be in contact with the outer peripheral surface of the case plate when the battery case of Kurita is modified by Kim’s gasket in a groove, including a rib.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the gasket of the battery pack of Kurita by including a rib for increasing sealing force taught by Kim having a shape that ensures the rib contacts the outer peripheral surface of the case plate.
Regarding Claim 5, Kurita modified by Kim teaches the battery pack according to claim 1, wherein the upper surface of the rib is on a same line as the outer peripheral surface of the gasket (see figure 3 of Kim).
Regarding Claim 6, Kurita modified by Kim teaches the battery pack according to claim 1, wherein the rib is located in a second area, which is one area of the gasket corresponding to a shape of an edge of the first side surface plate, and a third area, which is an area in which the gasket corresponds to the shape of the edge of the first side surface plate and has a curvature. See the annotated Figure 3 of Kim below.
PNG
media_image1.png
381
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant is reminded that the mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04). With regard to the third area having more ribs than the second area, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04. Additionally, see paragraph [0052] of Kim.
Regarding Claim 7, Kurita modified by Kim teaches the battery pack according to claim 1, wherein the rib is disposed in a direction perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the gasket. See annotated figure 3 of Kim below.
PNG
media_image2.png
302
302
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, Kurita modified by Kim teaches the battery pack according to claim 7, wherein the rib has a plate shape (see figure 3 of Kim). Regarding the bar shape, the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the rib of Kurita modified by Kim to have a bar shape.
Regarding Claim 9, Kurita modified by Kim teaches the battery pack according to claim 1. Kurita modified by Kim does not teach wherein a height of the rib is smaller than a height of the gasket; however, in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Therefore, the rib of Kurita modified by Kim anticipates the reduced height of the rib.
Regarding Claim 10, Kurita modified by Kim teaches the battery pack of claim 1, wherein the rib includes an elastic material (the sealing member 400 may be formed of an elastic rubber material, and the polarity indication tab 410 may be formed of the same material as the sealing member, see [0049]-[0050]).
Regarding Claim 11, Kurita modified by Kim teaches the battery pack of claim 10, wherein the rib includes a rubber (the sealing member 400 may be formed of an elastic rubber material, and the polarity indication tab 410 may be formed of the same material as the sealing member, see [0049]-[0050]).
Regarding Claim 12, Kurita modified by Kim teaches the battery pack of claim 1, wherein the gasket further comprises at least one protrusion (protrusion portion 402, see [0062] and figure 5 of Kim) spaced apart from another protrusion along the length of the gasket.
Regarding Claim 13, Kurita modified by Kim teach the battery pack according to claim 12, wherein the at least one protrusion is on an outer peripheral surface of the gasket (see figure 5 of Kim).
Regarding Claim 14, Kurita modified by Kim teaches the battery pack of claim 12, wherein the at least one protrusion is in contact with one surface of the groove (the protrusion portion 402 is in contact with one surface of the groove, see figure 5 of Kim).
Regarding Claim 15, Kurita modified by Kim teaches the battery pack of claim 12, wherein the at least one protrusion has a shape protruding in the width direction of the gasket (see figure 5 of Kim, which clearly depicts that the protrusion portion 402 has a shape protruding in the width direction of the gasket).
Regarding Claim 16, Kurita modified by Kim teaches the battery pack of claim 12, wherein a width of one area of the gasket including the at least one protrusion is greater than that of other portions of the gasket (see figure 5 of Kim, wherein the width of the region of the gasket with the protrusion is thicker than the width of the region of the gasket above and below the protrusion).
Regarding Claim 17, Kurita modified by Kim teaches the battery pack of Claim 16, wherein one area of the gasket including the at least one protrusion is forcibly fitted while overlapping with the groove (see figure 5 of Kim, the gasket has width greater than the width of the groove to be inserted into, overlapping, and it would be inherent to the gasket of Kim’s battery pack to be forcibly fitted, as the gasket must be squeezed or deformed to be inserted to the groove as shown).
Regarding Claim 18, Kurita modified by Kim teaches the battery pack according to claim 12. They do not explicitly teach wherein the at least one protrusion is on an outer peripheral surface of one area of the gasket where the rib is located. However, the mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added a protrusion to an area of the gasket where a rib is also located.
Regarding Claim 19, Kurita modified by Kim teaches the battery pack according to claim 18, wherein the at least one protrusion is on both surfaces of the gasket connected with one surface of the gasket where the rib is located (see figure 5 of Kim, which depicts protrusions on both sides of a gasket in one area). Regarding being located where the rib is also located, it is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill to arrange the protrusion for ensuring airtightness to be in an area where the rib is, without any unexpected results.
Regarding Claim 20, Kurita modified by Kim teaches the battery pack of claim 1. Kurita modified by Kim does not teach that a height of the gasket is greater than a height of the groove. However, in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Therefore, a gasket with greater length in the height direction is not patentably distinct from the gasket taught by Kurita modified by Kim.
Regarding Claim 21, Kurita modified by Kim teaches the battery pack of claim 1, wherein a width of the gasket is smaller than a width of the groove. However, in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Therefore, a gasket with reduced width compared to the width of the groove is not patentably distinct from the gasket taught by Kurita modified by Kim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yang et al. (KR 20140055766 A) teaches a rubber gasket structure for sealing t-joint portion with position fixing protrusions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW N KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-9169. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-3:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights